NOTE: In his first broadcast interview since the news of his potential run against Tom Feeney has been made public, Clint Curtis will be one of our guests this evening on The Young Turks radio program, where I'll be sitting in as Guest Host. Tune in via Sirius Satellite Channel 146 or at www.TheYoungTurks.com to listen, watch and call in from 6p-9p ET!

On Monday, we broke the story that vote-rigging whistleblower Clint Curtis is exploring a run for the U.S. Congress in Florida's 24th district. He hopes to challenge Rep. Tom Feeney, the man who Curtis alleges asked him to create a vote-rigging software prototype back in 2000 when they both worked at the same firm. Curtis was a software programmer, Feeney was the company's general counsel and registered lobbyist, even while he served as speaker of the Florida Legislature.

Curtis has now officially set up a website to support the campaign and raise much needed funding to take on both Feeney and an opponent in the Democratic primary race (Curtis was previously a life-long Republican until his experience with Feeney and friends left him with a distaste for Republican party politics).

See our previous item for more details on Curtis' extraordinary story and Feeney's alleged corruption and continuing failure to tell the truth about any number of things. If you're not familiar at all with Curtis' story, it's a remarkable one, and worth the read. A Quick Summary is available here.

I have been talking to Curtis for a while about running against Feeney since not long after The BRAD BLOG broke his story. In fact, I first brought up the notion with him back in January of 2005 when I met him in person for the first time at the Freedom Cinema Festival in Park City, UT where I was interviewing him on stage for a live festival event.

In hearing about Curtis' decision to finally go ahead and announce an exploratory campaign in hopes of running against Feeney --- and first against primary opponent Dr. Andy Michaud --- I sent several questions to Curtis via email last weekend. Here are those questions and his answers --- on his reasons for running, his chances of winning, how he plans to take Feeney head-on and confront him directly about corruption from the vote-rigging allegations to Feeney's cozy relationship with Tom DeLay. And of course, whether or not he'll ask Feeney to take a polygraph test, as Curtis himself has successfully done on questions relating to these matters...

BRAD BLOG: What convinced you to finally decide to run against Feeney?

CLINT CURTIS: Feeney is the poster boy for corruption. He is deeply involved with Abramhoff, vote fraud, and protection of a company engaged in spying for Communist China. This will be a pure good versus evil fight. I couldn't ask for a more Darth Vaderish opponent. I believe that most of the people of this district, whether Democrat, Independent or Republican, are interested in integrity. While my first love is that of computer programming, it appears that it is my destiny to challenge and correct that which is wrong.

BB: Are your hopes of running against Feeney simply a matter of revenge?

CC: There is nothing to seek revenge for, except as a concerned citizen that seeks to remove the corruption that he represents.

BB: Do you consider yourself a "protest candidate" or do you consider yourself a legitimate candidate for Florida's 24th Congressional District?

CC: I am not running to protest anything. I am running to make sure that every voter has confidence that their vote will count, that medical care be made available to every citizen while not becoming a socialized medicine situation, that the country becomes energy independant today (not 20 years from now), and that the saftey and security of this country be protected rather than forfieting our technology advantage to the only country that is a real threat.

BB: What do you consider to be your chances of defeating the well-funded, well-entrenched Feeney?

CC: As I said earlier, this battle seems almost destined to happen. I think that I may be the only candidate that can wrest control away from Feeney in an area he defined. [ed note: The conservative 24th district was carved out while Feeney was speaker of Florida's statehouse.] As with most battles of good vs. evil, good can only win if it receives suffiecient help. If my campaign does not receive both unprecedented financial support as well as huge volunteer efforts, this could be a very difficult quest to fulfill.

CC: Feeney is his own worst enemy. Feeney will be Feeney. Even those that support him, know what he is.

BB: Feeney carved out that district for himself while as House Speaker. It's very conservative I'm told. What makes you think a Democrat could win that seat?

CC: I do not think a normal Democrat could win in this area. That actually gives me an advantage because I am not a normal Democrat. Having been a Republican for four decades and a conservative in philosophy, I am something of a hybrid. I term it as a conservative Democrat. I believe that I am Democrat enough to appeal to the Democrats but just Republican enough to pull the 10% Republican votes and sway the conservative independent vote. That is the total that it will take to break Feeney's hold on this district. In a sense I guess you could say I am not exactly blue and not exactly red. I guess I am purple with a blue tint.

BB: Why are you running as a Democrat, instead of as a Republican against Feeney in the Primary? Since you have said you were previously a life-long Republican?

CC: I was a Republican for forty years. The values of that party have ceased to exist. Earmarked programs have reached an epidemic. Balanced budgets are only a memory, and corruption is at an all time high.

Controlling government and keeping them out of private affairs has been replaced with high tech spying on every American citizen and the largest growth in Goverment in the history of this country. Until the Republicans can get back to practicing the values they used to define, they are a party without a soul.

BB: What chance do you think you have against your primary opponent? Won't your run divide the S. Florida Dems between two different candidates?

CC: I will have a harder time against the primary opponent than against Feeney. Everyone has told me that Dr. Andy is a really nice guy and his issues seem to parrot the standard Democratic stance. While that makes him a purer Democrat than me, it will make it impossible for him to appeal to the conservative citizens of this district. Should he win the primary, I would expect he would be easily defeated in the general election with a 65% to 35% margin. That is the demographics of the way this district was drawn. And that is without even needing to resort to vote flipping.

BB: Do you think that Feeney's supporters will be supporting Dr. Andy against you?

CC: I am certain that Feeney's supporters won't be supporting me. Anything they donate to Dr. Andy takes away from what they can do for Feeney directly. It would be to their advantage to circumvent the battle in the primary. To let this battle reach the actual election would mean that the MSM would no longer be able to ignore the vote fraud prototype issue. If I reach the general election I will take Feeney to task. I will fight like a Republican.

BB: If you win the Primary, do you plan on asking Feeney to face you in debates? And do you expect he would do so?

CC: If I win the Primary I will not only ask Feeney for debates but also for a public polygraph test where we will both be grilled on such subjects as:

1. Did you know that Bush intented to invade Iraq prior to his election in 2000?
2. Have you ever assisted a company that had spies working for them to maintain high security clearances and obtain contracts?
3. Have you ever attempted to manipulate an election using illegal means?
4. Have you ever traded your vote to a lobbyist for personal gain?

I expect that he will be too busy to attend.

BB: Tom Feeney and his supporters are very well financed! Will you be able to raise the money you need to take on this Republican money machine?

CC: That is the key. It will be up to the citizens of this country. While this is just another congressional district in Florida it could also be our line in the sand. This is a national concern. Feeney is the architect of vote machine fraud against the honest citizens of this country. I was hesitant to lead this battle because if we lose it could damage the cause of democracy in this country. I am now convinced that fearing a loss is not a valid reason for never entering the fight.

I am confident that all those individuals around the country who care about the direction of this country will help to defeat the demon of democracy. I just googled my name and came up with over eight million hits. If each of those pages could generate just a few dollars each we could easily out finance Tom Feeney. If people will volunteer, and volunteers can come from across the nation, we can crush the person that systematically has helped steal our right to vote.

I realize that most people will not be able to donate the $2100 maximum amount or have the time to send out correspondence or make canvassing calls. It is obvious that some things will have to be done by local volunteers and that long distance assistance would not be practical in all cases, but this is our chance to make a stand. I hope every honest citizen in this country will join me on this quest.

Colonel Schaffer, Michael German, and other americans have witnessed categorical treason on both sides. I swear to you if Sibel told what she knows right now, it would stretch across both aisles. That is why they want her shut up so desperately....

All the whistle blower laws have been destroyed. So the congress in that room called for new protections, and a permanent ban to the abuse of congress on whistleblowers as well as the executive branch of Richard Bruce Cheney.

Psst! Brad!
That headline kinda makes him sound like a vote-rigging whistleblower...and if that's true, then he's in big trouble! He can just forget about that run at Capital Hill! And dessert for the next week! You've got to assert some discipline with young whistleblowers or they walk all over ya...

Reading the above, their strategy just hit me. They will try to defeat Clint in the Democratic primary, because if Clint goes against Feeney, it will blow the lid off everything. This is where it will happen: they will hack the Democratic primary and make sure Clint's Democrat opponent wins. It is THE only way to dodge Clint.

And while we're at it, let's check the exit polls vs. the final count in the 2004 Dem primaries. Anyone ever do that? I think they may have pulled this strategy to have Kerry go against Bush, and not Howard Dean. Exactly who in their right mind thinks whoever's doing this only hacks Rep. vs. Dem. elections???

We must all keep an eye on the exit polls vs. the "final count" (wink wink) in the DEMOCRATIC PRIMARY!!! I think I beat them to the punch this time. I'm trying to think like they do. Know how they're always a step ahead of us? Not this time!

If the Dems were smart, and they aren't, they'd run Clint unopposed in the primary, and FORCE a Clint vs. Feeney showdown. Let's check out the guy who's running against Clint. (see Sheehan/Hackett for more info on Dem's inept strategied)

We should bombard the DNC & Clint's opponent with emails not to run. There's a 100% chance Clint's Dem opponent will win, and then they will say, "Even their own party doesn't want him"...with a hacked primary.

Clint should be preparing to run as an Independent in case he loses the Democratic primary. He just needs a certain number of signatures (don't know what Florida requires). As long as he's on the ballot, he can talk about election fraud, demand Feeney take a polygraph, call for the Ray Lemme case to be reopened, ask why Henry Nee got away with probation and a $100 fine...the whole nine yards.

Winning the Democratic primary would be better, obviously, because the media would take him more seriously.

I used to live in the area....not to worry...the newpapers will cover the primary just as extensively and when they do the background on both candidates they will cover Clint's charges which throws Feeney in the thick of it early!
E

Seems you post at position #1 all the time and hit the minority party all the time.

With all the evidence against the republican (majority) party out in the open, a thread with a candidate who changed from republican to democrat, you want to blame the democrats?

You are exhibiting the republican talking points at almost every post you do here. Was Jim March correct about where you are really coming from?

I will take you on at each and every post I find where you want to make accountability confused. It is simple, the majority party which Clint Curtis is fighting, has all the power in congress and the presidency, and they have done the wrong.

For you to start the crap of "both sides of the isle" you have to ignore so much stench, corruption, lies, and grevious spying, to pick on those out of power.

You are so very wrong to keep this up and so I will continue to point this out until November.

For Dredd: The Republicans are the bad guys, no question. But I don't think it's wrong to point out that Democrats have failed to bring their crookedness to light, having had ample opportunity to do so.

What's wrong with hitting the Republicans hard, and at the same time demanding that Democrats do so?
The Democrats, as a party, have failed to expose frauds that led to their candidate being denied the White House twice in a row. They have enabled the Iraq debacle through their failure to stand up to Bush and the neo-cons in 2002-2003. They've failed to take a strong stand against prisoner abuse, extraordinary rendition, the outing of Valerie Plame, and Halliburton's no-bid contracts (hardly a complete list).

I'm not sure I get your point here. Why aren't both parties subject to condemnation? Why must we pick favorites between two pathetic organizations, one crooked and inept and the other inept?

Republicans are the ones ruining this country, no doubt. But, I bash the Democrats because I'm sick of the "lesser of 2 evils" cliche. I don't want the "lesser of 2 evils", I want something "good"! And the Dems are surely the lesser of 2 evils, but they aren't good...

Dredd, why do we have to settle for the "lesser of 2 evils"? I don't want to settle for that. And I'm sick of Dems saying "you're throwing away your vote, if you vote for Nader (or a 3rd party)". Dredd we're all throwing our votes away when we voted for Kerry, because the GOP hacked the election!

The "lesser of 2 evils" is something Bush considers before invading a nation, it is not what I use to describe american political parties. Comparing political parties is a naive exercise in that context.

Under our current system only one party is the majority party. And the minority is powerless even when they have moral strength.

Conyers was once powerful as the head of committees, and could subpoena and hold hearings. He could "get r done".

But while in the minority Conyers can't even get a meeting room, but instead must meet in the basement to try to get election fraud, domestic spying, and other issues to the surface. He can only write letters while he is in the minority.

Haven't you guys seen this over and over in the blog stories Brad has posted here all along?

Along with being in the majority in congress comes incredible power. Power to allow or deny subpoenas, schedule hearings, determine which subjects get a hearing, assign hearing rooms, crush the filibuster, and on and on.

The voters are confused when both the majority and the minority are blamed, and that is why the republican talking points emphasize "the dems do it too" ad nauseum. There is no way to correct the huge power bloc effects, in our system today, except thru not allowing it to exist. By voting the majority party out of congressional existence.

We are not anywhere close to the Nirvana and heavenly political party system whimsical wishings hope for in vain. It is a pipe dream at this point in our national history. Even tho it would be a better system.

We are at a brutal point in the politics of power, and would-be sophistry that would make it all perfectly nicey nice is undoubtably misplaced for the upcoming election.

Our system has only accountability to offer at the November election time. Brutal as it is, it is all we have ... vote out the majority party for the majority wrongs. Brutal but just. Rough but fair.

Then the congress will be split with the republicans still holding the senate, and dems the House. It evens the playing field a bit.

Then the dems will have some power. They govern better than republicans do, but they campaign worse than the republicans do.

Lets give the democrats a chance to show their governing prowess. The republicans have already shown us their incompetence at governing. If we leave them in we will have more unjust wars, unjust responses to Katrina like disasters, unjust tax relief, unjust financial benefits to the oil barons, unjust energy policy, and unjust courts.

Vote the republicans out this November. Then imagine Conyers as a committee chairman who has written a lot of letters for the past few years. Unanswered. Imagine him writing lots of subpoenas. Answered!

Dredd,
I understand what you say but it's hard to forget that we (dems) had both the House and Senate for nearly nearly 4 decades and treated the Republicans the same way they treat us. I think that's why things changed ...our abuse of power had Americans as upset as they are right now with the Republicans and it's why I think it will change again. I hope we learned something this time. I don't know how many times we can keep doing this with our country intact!
E

RLM#18 Dems could have hung themselves ten times over with all the time we have given them. Every time I think they are going to stand up,they disappoint.Take the Patriot Act as an example. It got stopped last year and now all of a sudden everybody is voting for it even tho changes were not made to it. Russ Feingold got very little back up yesterday in the senate to help block it.Everybody is kisssing the White house's butt about it,after the mysterious gas found in the senate last week. Smoke and Mirrors all over again.So sick of it!

This can work if we all pull together and e-mail everyone in our address books! I have children that live in that district so I'll have them help...they'd love to take out Feeney!!! I will also send a contribution .

Actually, Feeney is right about technology companies in general. Remember Scott McNeely of Sun Microsystems' comment? "You have no privacy. Get over it." Bill Gates, Jeffrey Bezos, and Michael Dell are basically the same, entrepreneurs who see the Internet has a vast empire of unlimited profit, with ethical considerations always in the astract world.

But a guy with no ethics like Feeney, talking about limited freedom as a virtue when he knows that open and free discussion of ethical questions will reveal his own sins, comes over as nothing more or less than a hypocrite. Let's all support Clint Curtis' campaign to the max.

I was also thinking about Feeney's former relationship with a certain amoral technology company. Remember, he was lobbiest and counsel for Yang Enterprises. Pot, kettle and such... Not to mention said technology company's former employee's involvement (and guilty plea) with illegal technology exports to China.

Tom Feeney Watch: One hardly knows where to begin with this revealing quote today, from Tom Feeney, defending the recent behavior of US firms in China:

"A person who gets a censored version of Google is more free than he was before" he had any Google access, says Rep. Tom Feeney (R) of Florida. But that toehold for freedom could vanish if Congress adds new rules because "technology companies, like most companies, are amoral. They're going to go where there's economic opportunity," he adds.

Feeney did not face opposition in 2004 but this year already has two opponents, veterinarian Andy Michaud, a Democrat, and computer programmer Clint Curtis, a lifelong Republican turned Democrat. Both Curtis and the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee question Feeney's ethics.

The legal structure of our congress does not support a multi-party system, and is designed really for a two party system. This is not good.

Under the law of the House and Senate, "the Senate divides its tasks among 20 committees, 68 subcommittees, and 4 joint committees" ... "The chair of each committee and a majority of its members represent the majority party. The chair primarily controls a committees business" (link here).

Take an example where republicans win 30 seats, independents win 28 seats, greens win 29 seats, and democrats win 13 seats. We can now easily see that this will not work well.

The republicans with 30 seats end up as the majority party. Remember that the majority party and the majority are not the same thing in our example. The majority is 70 votes (greens, indys, and dems), but the majority party is 30 republican seats.

Therefore, they get the committee chair on each committee, and they get the majority number of members in each committee.

So, in our system, the majority of seats would be governed by the minority 30 seats.

For Dredd: Where is it written in law that the majority (or plurality) party gets all the committee chairmanships? I know that's how it works, but is there any reason why it should?

If, in the current framework, Republicans own 54% of the House seats and Democrats 46% (I think that's close to being right), wouldn't it make sense to apportion committee chairmanships on the same percentage basis? In truth, the 54% doesn't represent a share of the electorate, because House Democrats actually represent more citizens with their 46% than Republicans do with 54% (because blue states have bigger populations and because Republicans rigged the districts in their favor).

If we had three or four parties (like Britain and Canada), it's likely no party would have a majority, as you outlined. No party with a 40% plurality would dare claim control of Parliament simply because nobody else has more. Our system is broken, let's face it.

The legal structure of our congress does not support a multi-party system, and is designed for a two party system. It is a winner take all affair.

This is not good, but it is reality.

Under the law of the House and Senate, "the Senate divides its tasks among 20 committees, 68 subcommittees, and 4 joint committees" ... "The chair of each committee and a majority of its members represent the majority party. The chair primarily controls a committees business" (link here).

Take an example where republicans win 30 seats, independents win 28 seats, greens win 29 seats, and democrats win 13 seats. We can now easily see that this will not work well.

The republicans with 30 seats end up as the majority party. Remember that the majority party and the majority are not the same thing in our system. The majority, in this example, is 70 votes (greens, indys, and dems), but the majority party is the republicans because they got those 30 seats.

Therefore, they get the committee chair on each and every committee, and they get the majority number of members in each and every committee of congress.

So, in our system, the majority of seats would be governed by the minority republican 30 seats.

Anyone see any way to improve this?

I do. The polls show that the body politic favors democrats in the upcoming election, and voting democrats into the majority is the public will.

We would have an easier time prevailing upon them to change the rules.

It should be pro rata based upon percentage of seats.

Committees should be distributed to all parties based upon percentage of seats in a pro rata configuration.

Otherwise, when independents, greens, democrats, and other parties fight each other the republicans always remain the majority party and therefore always control the congress.